Regarding the most recent Barbarian nerf

[RedGiant]

A good alternative to the CON contradiction is to have the cooldown start upon using it, and make it a bit longer.

This. Elegant. Simple. Solved.

The team could work out the specifics, but CON also increasing the rage frequency would put CON builds back on the map.

[Cortex]

The only other concern I have and would like to voice; when the thread went up with the change, it used an erroneous HP calculation, one that spyre quickly quoted in defense of the nerf.

The nerf is also not so heavy in HP. You probably dropped 60 HP? Yet maintained all your damage output and other increases.

You already have an exceptionally high amount. The formula, new and old, are presented for clarity - if you review them, you shouldn't see a high difference.

I really hope it isn't true, but given the fouled up math in the announcement and then this post, I don't know if the 'nerf' was even done using the correct, in-game math.

Given how some people lost almost 200 HP (some con barbs lost even more) vs the 60 quoted by Spyre, I am hoping the nerf was not done with the correct math in mind, and the nerf can be adjusted.

I assume most barbarian builds have at least 21 barbarian levels and 11 CON modifier+toughness, so let's go with that.
((12 + Base CON Modifier + Toughness) x Class Level) / 2

((12 + 12) x 21) / 2
24x21/2=252 HP

Now it's:
6 x Class Level
6 x 21 = 126

So if you're a level 21 with 21 base CON and capped CON buffs, you lost exactly half temporary HP.

[Miaou]

Thread cleaned of the worst of the derailing arguments. Keep things on topic and be nice to your fellow players.

[BegoneThoth]

Yeah, reducing the effectiveness of a survival based class feature by half.

It's an enormous nerf. Far more then 60.

[Cortex]

It is, but it was quite necessary, barbarians were very oppressive at the press of a button.

[schlitzmaltliquor]

I assume most barbarian builds have at least 21 barbarian levels and 11 CON modifier+toughness, so let's go with that.
((12 + Base CON Modifier + Toughness) x Class Level) / 2

((12 + 12) x 21) / 2
24x21/2=252 HP

Now it's:
6 x Class Level
6 x 21 = 126

So if you're a level 21 with 21 base CON and capped CON buffs, you lost exactly half temporary HP.

If something says "Base CON Modifier" I take that as the modifier before magical enhancement.

So in this case, a Barbarian with 21 CON would have a +5 Base CON Modifier.

This causes quite a bit of confusion, because people were at least under the assumption they were getting 252 HP, when they may have been getting 189 HP, and are now getting 126 HP.

I do feel like the assumption was actually correct. That the Base CON Modifier was not even being evaluated and it was just a flat "Max HP / 2" Type equation. Either that or the Reference to the CON Modifier was not using the "Base" and was using the Enchanced version.

*Edit*

Here is the information posted on the Wiki at the time of this posting. It had not been changed since the update. Based on this, it is safe to assume that the "Update" post was incorrect labeling "Base CON Mod" and not "CON Mod". This leads to as you stated, a 50% decrease and not the 33% decrease.

[schlitzmaltliquor]

The nerf is also not so heavy in HP. You probably dropped 60 HP? Yet maintained all your damage output and other increases.

You already have an exceptionally high amount. The formula, new and old, are presented for clarity - if you review them, you shouldn't see a high difference.

They are still better than the vanilla Barbarians with everything else added to them.

DM Spyre,

It seems that there may be some confusion among the DM team as to what the previous calculation was. It also seems based on your post that there was an expected ~25% decrease in temp HP. I also based my assumtion off the Original Update Post with the calculation (12 + Base CON Mod + Toughness) * Barb Lvl / 2. However, seeing my previous post, the Wiki did not list the same calculation.

The following Formula would more accurately represent a 25% decrease in temp HP, while also still giving a player incentive into investing into CON.

Proposed Formula: (6 + CON Mod + Toughness) * Barb Lvl / 2

Here is a spreadsheet that shows progression from +0 Base CON Modifier to +10 Base CON Modifier. Magical Enhancement values have been included in the formulas to accurately represent Previous vs Current vs Proposed

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I hope that I haven't come off as condescending or rude, as that is not my intention. If I have, I apologize.

[yellowcateyes]

The old temp HP formula did indeed use total CON modifier and not base CON; the announcement post has been corrected.

The jumbled formulas in the announcements were due to a copy-paste error, as outdated documentation was used to quickly grab the (incorrect) info for posting. The correct formulas were taken into consideration when applying the change.

[schlitzmaltliquor]

The old temp HP formula did indeed use total CON modifier and not base CON; the announcement post has been corrected.

The jumbled formulas in the announcements were due to a copy-paste error, as outdated documentation was used to quickly grab the (incorrect) info for posting. The correct formulas were taken into consideration when applying the change.

Thank you for the clarification. I do, however, believe if that was the intended effect, this would have been better:

(CON Bonus + Toughness) * Barb Level / 2

For a 21 Con barb, it would have yielded the same result, and not punished a Higher Con Barb as much. In my opinion, the current change has lessened the importance of CON on a Barbarian, which is less than desirable.

[Cortex]

I think CON is still very much desirable, just not a main stat but a secondary. You still want to max STR because that's what allows you to smash puny idiots that make fun of your axe.

You want 18 CON if you're not going for EDR (to get all barb rage bonuses), and 21 if you want EDR. There is no reason to get more unless you want even CON or you're going pure barbarian for some reason and want +7 passive CON damage. Before the change, I would have the same, you don't want or need more than 21-22 CON.

[schlitzmaltliquor]

I think CON is still very much desirable, just not a main stat but a secondary. You still want to max STR because that's what allows you to smash puny idiots that make fun of your axe.

You want 18 CON if you're not going for EDR (to get all barb rage bonuses), and 21 if you want EDR. There is no reason to get more unless you want even CON or you're going pure barbarian for some reason and want +7 passive CON damage. Before the change, I would have the same, you don't want or need more than 21-22 CON.

I have been thinking since my last post whether or not I wanted to continue to try to make my point clear, because I feel as though it's falling on deaf ears.

Cortex points out that 21 is still the "ideal CON" but the fact is people have MORE than 21 CON, which is less than optimal before and even more so after the nerf.

If 21 is Optimal, then that is a Base +5 CON bonus

Why not just change the formula then to (Base CON Bonus + Toughness) * Level

If you have 21 base con and toughness nothing changes, and doesn't punish those who built outside of the "optimal build" by investing heavily in CON.

I don't personally understand how people can feel a flat per level bonus is a good thing. Note, this is not to help me, but to help others who I know who were even more hurt by the nerf than I was because I invested less in CON.

[Cortex]

well heavily investing on CON was never a good idea to begin with tbh

The nerf was done because STR characters were getting an unhealthy amount of HP, and now it was dettached from CON altogether as a nerf and a way to make barbarian levels a smidge more meaningful.

I honestly cannot imagine why someone would invest more than 22 CON after biteback was taken out, other than for memes (in which case I imagine they'd acknowledge it's a bad meme build). And if they're from the biteback era, while this will sound insensitive, changes will happen, and the dev team cannot make changes around out lier builds, moreover, they're really old and could do with a remake or roll and start anew.